Come, Come, Mr. Pullum

I had l’esprit de l’escalier after writing the post below, which is about Geoffrey Pullum’s assertion that most of the differences between British English and American English are matters of pronunciation or “word choice,” rather than grammar. Specifically, three grammatical differences occurred to me:

The (British) use of plural verbs with collective nouns, such as “Manchester United are having a poor season” or “Parliament are meeting.”

The singular “they” is overwhelmingly used in speech and in online writing in both the U.K. and the U.S. (“If someone writes a book, they [as opposed to “he,” “she,” or “he or she”] should be prepared to do a lot of research.”) However, it is not widely accepted in U.S. academic writing, journalism, or publishing, while it is (it seems to me) in the U.K.

American English uses had gotten (and hadforgotten), while British English uses had got. The truth of the latter proposition was forcefully brought home to me a year or so ago when I was interviewed by an Irish radio presenter on the subject of NOOBs. Asked for an example, I mentioned that the New Yorker magazine uses got instead of the more otherwise prevalent gotten. There was a pause, as if for the host to make sure his ears had not deceived him. “GOTTEN??” he bellowed. “GOTTEN?? There is no such word as GOTTEN!” It took a full ninety seconds before I was able to convince him that I wasn’t having him on.

I should say that underlying Geoff’s argument is his contention that the differences, whatever the extent of them, do not constitute some sort of scandal or problem, or much misunderstanding or mystification, either. I would agree with him on both points, while noting that a few words, notably pants and pissed, can create comedy via their dual meanings.

Are the differences exaggerated due to cognitive biases and prejudices? Absolutely. Are we still mostly able to communicate easily? Yes, certainly. But that doesn’t make the differences that are there any less interesting to me.

Related

23 responses to “Come, Come, Mr. Pullum”

On plural verbs with collective nouns, I’d say that it’s usually uncomfortable and unfixed in British English. In the case of your examples – “Manchester United are having a poor season” or “Parliament are meeting” – I don’t think I’d notice the first one but I wince when I hear the latter. Quite likely to shout “Parliament IS meeting!” at the television. Sloppy and picky both.

Agreed. In the case of Manchester United, the comment refers to not only the club but also the players, coaches etc. Conversely, Parliament is being treated as a single entity. It is clearly messy, but generally determined by context.

Referring to a football club in the plural is normal British practice and has been for decades. It is indicative that the club is not just the formal organisation, but its owners, directors, staff, players and (in terms of numbers) supporters. A person is a singular noun; a city is singular; a country is too. But a population (although it lacks a final “s”) clearly is not – even if the dictionary say so.

(Why is my US-developed spell checker highlighting organisation with an “s”, but not practice [n] with a “c”??)

Parliament is never referred to in the UK as a plural subject. Parliament “is”. Whereas the Government and the Opposition may be “is-ing” (if in unison) or “are-ing” if factionalism is apparent. The Government is united to… The Opposition are split for and against.

There’s a level of nuance (a NOOF, à la français) that will escape most US readers.

As for “They” rather than “He”; “She” or “It “- surely it makes common sense in terms of economy and the avoidance of legalistic pedantry to use “They”. The grammatical stickler will get accustomed to the apparent pluralism within a century or so. The example: “If someone writes a book, they [as opposed to “he,” “she,” or “he or she”] should be prepared to do a lot of research.” Why not go the whole hog and trot out “each and every one of them, severally and/or collectively”? No?

Gotten is not only archaic, it is ugly in the extreme. When you wager on a horse race, have you betten? Caught a fish… netten? Rented out your house… letten? Made a rendez-vous… metten? Decomposed in your coffin… retten?

Referring to a football club in the plural is normal British practice and has been for decades

In certain contexts. “Manchester United are playing badly”, but “Manchester United was founded in 1878”.

(Why is my US-developed spell checker highlighting organisation with an “s”, but not practice [n] with a “c”??)

Because, believe it or not, both noun and verb are spelled with a “c” in the US.

Parliament is never referred to in the UK as a plural subject. Parliament “is”. Whereas the Government and the Opposition may be “is-ing” (if in unison) or “are-ing” if factionalism is apparent. The Government is united to… The Opposition are split for and against. There’s a level of nuance (a NOOF, à la français) that will escape most US readers.

I’m not sure this is actually the relevant criterion (unison vs. factionalism). It it were, we would expect to see “Parliament are” rather than “Parliament is”, since Parliament is, almost by definition, composed of factions.

In fact, Google News searches for “the government is” vs. “the goverment are (restricted to the UK) suggest that formality is what matters: “the government are” is more likely in quoted spontaneous speech, or other informal contexts; “the government is” in more formal settings. But perhaps formality is “a level of nuance” that has escaped you?

It is fixed in British English because we subconsciously apply an underlying nuanced meaning depending whether we are speaking in terms of an institution/collective noun… singular, or a number of people/things… plural.

The club Manchester United is singular; its players are a number, plural.

Try this. Manchester United (institution) is at the top of the league.

Manchester United (players) are playing well. ‘Players’ does not have to be spoken because the plural form of the verb ‘are’ makes that clear.

In fact Manchester United ‘is’ playing well is incorrect because it, being a thing, cannot play football, only people can.

Ditto Parliament: Parliament (the institution) is sitting; (Members) of Parliament are debating.

Very interesting to see this issue debated.
On a side note, one thing I’m amazed at is that an Irish journalist should have said that “there is no such word as ‘gotten'”. While it is arguably not the preferred form, especially in writing, ‘gotten’ is certainly out there in Irish English : the (relatively small) ICE-Ireland has 7.7 occurrences of ‘gotten’ per million words, and the GLOWBE corpus has as many as 22.19 occurrences per million words emanating from Ireland., compared with 1.07 in the BNC and 14.39 in the GLOWBE for Great Britain (but well over 50 per million in both the COCA and the GLOWBE-US).

#3: “…before I was able to convince him that I wasn’t having him on.” Is that what they say in Ireland? Here in the U.S., we say, “putting him on.”
#2: I know many will strongly disagree, but in the absence of a true unisex pronoun, I, as one of apparently few, still like “s/he” for its economy.

Both “gotten” and “got” are derived from old English, but the former has fallen out of use in British English. Although routinely spotted in colloquial use, “got” is often superfluous and normally avoided in formal writing.

I share FM’s amazement that the Irish radio presenter was not familiar with “gotten”. Those of us who enjoy American TV shows should be very aware of it. I have even seen it written by English people who had probably picked it up from TV.

There may only be a ‘few’ words which could cause amusing or embarrassing confusions between the UK and US, but I wonder if it’s worth a post to collect these?

I’m a Brit, so here are couple of examples:

I remember listening to a comedy LP as a kid (Shelley Berman, since you ask) in which he asked his audience if “your fannies ever fall asleep”. As the UK meaning of fanny is close physiologically, but far away in terms of good taste, it astounded me that it could be asked on an early 1960s gramaphone record!

Many years later I was in a San Francisco restaurant. I had a bit of a coughing fit and, when asked by the waiter if I was OK, I told him that I was fine and I had a cough from “smoking too many fags”. It was only after he stormed off and I was subsequently served by another person that I realised the meaning that he attributed to my (honestly) innocent statement.

I remember many years ago someone telling me that on their first visit to the US, he found women in bars asked him three question, his age, his star sign, and what turned him on. When he answered “suspenders” to that last question, he got some very odd looks.

And the elasticated strips that go over the shoulders to hold up ones trousers are known as braces in the UK (hence belt and braces).

Also there’s that line in the Monty Python lumberjack song about the lumberjack wearing “suspendies and a bra”.

A couple of years ago I was going through a tube station and saw a poster advertising an erotica expo in London, illustrated with a photograph of a man and a woman both wearing less than the usual amount of clothes. The woman was in her underwear and wearing what I’d call suspenders and the man was shirtless but his trousers were held up by braces. Aha, I thought to myself, to an Englishman, she’s wearing suspenders and to an American, he’s wearing suspenders. Which I suspect is not the reaction the people who put up the poster were expecting.

I recall always being perplexed when watching Star Trek: The Next Generation by (Yorkshireman) Patrick Stewart by the use of the similar word “headed” (“Where are we headed, number one?”) rather than the British use which is “heading”.

The British English use of “headed” is something you do to a football (sorry, Soccer ball) with your forehead (“he headed it into the net”).

Most AmE differences don’t seem so strange to the English as ‘gotten’. For some reason this word sounds to the English ear as if you were using the word ‘Achtung’ as part of an English sentence. Perhaps like the zeal of the convert, this is a form of grammar we are attentive NOT to use.

Americans are often surprised to learn that we in the UK find their English quaint sometimes. “Gotten” is one example which I think is delightful (though other commentators are quite right to point out that it survives untouched in “forgotten” in BrE too). AmE also uses the subjunctive much more frequently than we do, which is a shame for BrE in my view as we lose the distinction between, say, “It’s important that you are here” (you are here and that it’s important) and “It’s important that you be here” (you’re not (yet) here but your presence will be important). But my absolute favourite is “Turnpike”, a word which – to me at least – conjures up an 18th century road with highwaymen lurking at every bend. Tickles me every time I hear it.